US20050071807A1 - Methods and systems for predicting software defects in an upcoming software release - Google Patents
Methods and systems for predicting software defects in an upcoming software release Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20050071807A1 US20050071807A1 US10/718,400 US71840003A US2005071807A1 US 20050071807 A1 US20050071807 A1 US 20050071807A1 US 71840003 A US71840003 A US 71840003A US 2005071807 A1 US2005071807 A1 US 2005071807A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- software
- upcoming
- software release
- release
- defects
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F11/00—Error detection; Error correction; Monitoring
- G06F11/008—Reliability or availability analysis
Definitions
- the present invention relates generally to software engineering, and, more particularly, to methods and systems for predicting software defects in an upcoming software release.
- the present invention provides a novel way to forecast the number of software defects for an upcoming software release.
- the relative size of an upcoming software release with respect to a baseline software release is determined, and the number of software defects for the upcoming software release is forecast based on the relative size of the upcoming software release and the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release.
- the relative size of the upcoming software release can be obtained by determining the number of new test requirements for the upcoming software release, determining the number of test requirements for the baseline software release, and dividing the number of new test requirements for the upcoming software release by the number of test requirements for the baseline software release.
- the forecasted number of software defects can be then be calculated by multiplying the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release by the relative size of the upcoming software release.
- a quality measurement for the upcoming software release can be determined based on the actual number of software defects for the upcoming software release relative to the forecasted number of software defects for the upcoming software release. This quality measurement value can be calculated by dividing the forecasted number of software defects by the actual number of software defects. A quality measurement value greater than one indicates that the software release achieved higher quality than the baseline software release. A quality measurement value of one indicates that the software release achieved the same level of quality as the baseline software release. A quality measurement value less than one indicates that the software release has a lower quality level than the baseline software release.
- the forecasting step includes multiplying the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release by the sum of the relative size of the upcoming software release and a regression defect factor.
- the forecasting step includes multiplying the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release by the sum of the relative size of the upcoming software release and a refactoring factor.
- aspects of the present invention are incorporated into a project management system.
- FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a computer processing system to which the present invention may be applied according to an embodiment of the present invention
- FIG. 2 shows a flow diagram outlining an exemplary technique for forecasting the number of software defects for an upcoming software release
- FIG. 3 shows an exemplary screen display of a project management system incorporating the software defect prediction features of the present invention.
- the present invention provides a technique to forecast the number of software defects for an upcoming software release that involves evaluating the relative size of the upcoming software release with respect to a baseline software release, and estimating the number of expected defects based on the relative size of the upcoming software release and the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release.
- a metric is provided to measure the quality achieved after product implementation.
- the present invention may be implemented in various forms of hardware, software, firmware, special purpose processors, or a combination thereof.
- the present invention is implemented in software as a program tangibly embodied on a program storage device.
- the program may be uploaded to, and executed by, a machine comprising any suitable architecture.
- the machine is implemented on a computer platform having hardware such as one or more central processing units (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), and input/output (I/O) interface(s).
- CPU central processing units
- RAM random access memory
- I/O input/output
- the computer platform also includes an operating system and microinstruction code.
- the various processes and functions described herein may either be part of the microinstruction code or part of the program (or combination thereof) which is executed via the operating system.
- various other peripheral devices may be connected to the computer platform such as an additional data storage device and a printing device.
- FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a computer processing system 100 to which the present invention may be applied according to an embodiment of the present invention.
- the system 100 includes at least one processor (hereinafter processor) 102 operatively coupled to other components via a system bus 104 .
- processor hereinafter processor
- a read-only memory (ROM) 106 , a random access memory (RAM) 108 , an I/O interface 110 , a network interface 112 , and external storage 114 are operatively coupled to the system bus 104 .
- peripheral devices such as, for example, a display device, a disk storage device(e.g., a magnetic or optical disk storage device), a keyboard, and a mouse, may be operatively coupled to the system bus 104 by the I/O interface 110 or the network interface 112 .
- the computer system 100 may be a standalone system or be linked to a network via the network interface 112 .
- the network interface 112 may be a hard-wired interface.
- the network interface 112 can include any device suitable to transmit information to and from another device, such as a universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter (UART), a parallel digital interface, a software interface or any combination of known or later developed software and hardware.
- UART universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter
- the network interface may be linked to various types of networks, including a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), an intranet, a virtual private network (VPN), and the Internet.
- LAN local area network
- WAN wide area network
- VPN virtual private network
- the external storage 114 may be implemented using a database management system (DBMS) managed by the processor 102 and residing on a memory such as a hard disk. However, it should be appreciated that the external storage 114 may be implemented on one or more additional computer systems.
- DBMS database management system
- FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary technique for predicting the number of software defects in an upcoming software release.
- a test requirement can include any software feature that will be the subject of testing.
- the test requirements will generally have been determined during the course of project planning. For example, many project management systems employ function point analysis. Function point analysis requires a project manager to estimate the number of software features that will be needed for a software system. The time necessary to develop the project is taken as the sum of the development time for each feature of the software. In this case, the number of new functions to be implemented could be used as the number of test requirements for the upcoming software release. This value could be manually input, or obtained directly from the project management system, for example.
- step 204 the number of test requirements for a baseline software release (TR n ⁇ y ) is determined.
- this “baseline release” will be a major software release, whereas the upcoming release will include relatively fewer new features.
- major releases are often designated by a whole number such as “Release 2.0”.
- Minor releases are often designated with a decimal value, such as “Release 2. 1”.
- the number of test requirements for the baseline release will generally be a known quantity.
- step 206 the New Functionality Factor for the upcoming release is calculated
- NFF n TR n /TR n-y (1)
- step 208 the actual number of defects for the baseline release (D n-y ) is input.
- this will be a known value and will reflect defects that have so far been observed. Defects could include critical defects, major defects, minor defects, etc. However, it is important that the type of defect counted in this step be of the type that the user wishes to have forecast. Thus, if only critical defects were to be forecasted, then the value for D n-y should only include observed critical defects for the baseline release.
- step 210 the number of defects for the upcoming software release (D n ) is calculated.
- D n D n-y *NFF n (2)
- the New Functionality Factor may be determined by dividing the number of new test requirements for an upcoming software release by the number of test requirements for a “benchmark” software release.
- R factor of actual regression defects
- the following formula may be used in lieu of Formula 2 to calculate the estimated number of defects in an upcoming software release, taking into consideration regression defects.
- D n D n-y *( NFF n +R n-y ) (4)
- the present invention can also be used in the situation where software code is re-factored.
- Software code is refactored when it is substantially re-written.
- We can overcome the problem of code re-factoring by adding the value “1” (or another suitable value) to the New Functionality Factor for that release. This means that we expect regression defects across the functionality as a benchmark. (If the regression defects were expected across 80% of the functionality, then the value “0.80” could be added to the New Functionality Factor).
- the following formula expresses this concept (where the assumption is that regression defects will be across all functionalities).
- D n D n-y *( NFF n +1) (5)
- FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary screen display of a project management system incorporating features of the present invention.
- a baseline release (“Release 1.0”) had 241 test requirements
- an upcoming software release (“Release 2.0”) had 82 new test requirements.
- Release 1.0 had 32 Critical Defects and 41 Major Defects.
Abstract
The present invention provides a novel way to forecast the number of software defects for an upcoming software release. The systems and methods of the present invention involve evaluating the relative size of the upcoming software release with respect to a baseline software release, and estimating the number of expected defects based on the relative size of the upcoming software release and the number of observed software defects for the baseline release. Additional robustness may be achieved by adjusting the forecast to take into consideration regression defects that were detected in the baseline release as well as any code re-factoring. The present invention may be used in various applications such a project management system to allow a project manager to allocate sufficient resources to handle software defects, and to plan accordingly. In various embodiments, a metric is provided to measure the quality achieved after product implementation, based on the forecasted number of software defects.
Description
- This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/506,794, filed by Aura Yanavi on Sep. 29, 2003 and entitled “Methods and Systems For Predicting Software Defects In an Upcoming Software Release”, which is incorporated herein by reference.
- The present invention relates generally to software engineering, and, more particularly, to methods and systems for predicting software defects in an upcoming software release.
- In an effort to improve software quality, various project management systems have been developed. Although these project management systems improve the chances that projects will be completed in a timely manner, managers continue to find it difficult to predict the number of software defects for upcoming software releases. If the number of software defects could be reliably predicted, then managers would be able to commit the necessary resources to more accurately deal with problems that arise.
- In the academic world, this area of software defect prediction has been the subject of considerable research. There are complex, quantitative methods that focus on the relationship between the number of defects and software complexity. Typically, these models make numerous, unrealistic assumptions. Still other models focus on the quality of the development process as the best predictor of a product's quality. Unfortunately, none of these approaches have yielded accurate results. Accordingly, it would be desirable and highly advantageous to provide improved and simplified techniques for predicting software defects.
- The present invention provides a novel way to forecast the number of software defects for an upcoming software release. According to the methods and systems of the present invention, the relative size of an upcoming software release with respect to a baseline software release is determined, and the number of software defects for the upcoming software release is forecast based on the relative size of the upcoming software release and the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release. The relative size of the upcoming software release can be obtained by determining the number of new test requirements for the upcoming software release, determining the number of test requirements for the baseline software release, and dividing the number of new test requirements for the upcoming software release by the number of test requirements for the baseline software release. The forecasted number of software defects can be then be calculated by multiplying the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release by the relative size of the upcoming software release.
- According to an embodiment of the invention, a quality measurement for the upcoming software release can be determined based on the actual number of software defects for the upcoming software release relative to the forecasted number of software defects for the upcoming software release. This quality measurement value can be calculated by dividing the forecasted number of software defects by the actual number of software defects. A quality measurement value greater than one indicates that the software release achieved higher quality than the baseline software release. A quality measurement value of one indicates that the software release achieved the same level of quality as the baseline software release. A quality measurement value less than one indicates that the software release has a lower quality level than the baseline software release.
- According to another embodiment of the invention, the forecasting step includes multiplying the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release by the sum of the relative size of the upcoming software release and a regression defect factor.
- According to another embodiment of the invention, the forecasting step includes multiplying the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release by the sum of the relative size of the upcoming software release and a refactoring factor.
- According to another embodiment of the invention, aspects of the present invention are incorporated into a project management system.
- These and other aspects, features and advantages of the present invention will become apparent from the following detailed description of preferred embodiments, which is to be read in connection with the accompanying drawings.
-
FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a computer processing system to which the present invention may be applied according to an embodiment of the present invention; -
FIG. 2 shows a flow diagram outlining an exemplary technique for forecasting the number of software defects for an upcoming software release; and -
FIG. 3 shows an exemplary screen display of a project management system incorporating the software defect prediction features of the present invention. - The present invention provides a technique to forecast the number of software defects for an upcoming software release that involves evaluating the relative size of the upcoming software release with respect to a baseline software release, and estimating the number of expected defects based on the relative size of the upcoming software release and the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release. In various embodiments, a metric is provided to measure the quality achieved after product implementation.
- It is to be understood that the present invention may be implemented in various forms of hardware, software, firmware, special purpose processors, or a combination thereof. Preferably, the present invention is implemented in software as a program tangibly embodied on a program storage device. The program may be uploaded to, and executed by, a machine comprising any suitable architecture. Preferably, the machine is implemented on a computer platform having hardware such as one or more central processing units (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), and input/output (I/O) interface(s). The computer platform also includes an operating system and microinstruction code. The various processes and functions described herein may either be part of the microinstruction code or part of the program (or combination thereof) which is executed via the operating system. In addition, various other peripheral devices may be connected to the computer platform such as an additional data storage device and a printing device.
- It is to be understood that, because some of the constituent system components and method steps depicted in the accompanying figures are preferably implemented in software, the actual connections between the system components (or the process steps) may differ depending upon the manner in which the present invention is programmed.
-
FIG. 1 is a block diagram of acomputer processing system 100 to which the present invention may be applied according to an embodiment of the present invention. Thesystem 100 includes at least one processor (hereinafter processor) 102 operatively coupled to other components via asystem bus 104. A read-only memory (ROM) 106, a random access memory (RAM) 108, an I/O interface 110, anetwork interface 112, andexternal storage 114 are operatively coupled to thesystem bus 104. Various peripheral devices such as, for example, a display device, a disk storage device(e.g., a magnetic or optical disk storage device), a keyboard, and a mouse, may be operatively coupled to thesystem bus 104 by the I/O interface 110 or thenetwork interface 112. - The
computer system 100 may be a standalone system or be linked to a network via thenetwork interface 112. Thenetwork interface 112 may be a hard-wired interface. However, in various exemplary embodiments, thenetwork interface 112 can include any device suitable to transmit information to and from another device, such as a universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter (UART), a parallel digital interface, a software interface or any combination of known or later developed software and hardware. The network interface may be linked to various types of networks, including a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), an intranet, a virtual private network (VPN), and the Internet. - The
external storage 114 may be implemented using a database management system (DBMS) managed by theprocessor 102 and residing on a memory such as a hard disk. However, it should be appreciated that theexternal storage 114 may be implemented on one or more additional computer systems. -
FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary technique for predicting the number of software defects in an upcoming software release. - In step 202, the number of new test requirements for a software release (TRn) is input. In general, a test requirement can include any software feature that will be the subject of testing. The test requirements will generally have been determined during the course of project planning. For example, many project management systems employ function point analysis. Function point analysis requires a project manager to estimate the number of software features that will be needed for a software system. The time necessary to develop the project is taken as the sum of the development time for each feature of the software. In this case, the number of new functions to be implemented could be used as the number of test requirements for the upcoming software release. This value could be manually input, or obtained directly from the project management system, for example.
- Next, in
step 204, the number of test requirements for a baseline software release (TRn−y) is determined. Generally, this “baseline release” will be a major software release, whereas the upcoming release will include relatively fewer new features. In the software industry, major releases are often designated by a whole number such as “Release 2.0”. Minor releases are often designated with a decimal value, such as “Release 2. 1”. The number of test requirements for the baseline release will generally be a known quantity. - In
step 206, the New Functionality Factor for the upcoming release is calculated The following formula specifies one way to determine the New Functionality Factor:
NFF n =TR n /TR n-y (1)
where -
- NFFn is the New Functionality Factor for release n;
- TRn is the number of new test requirements for release n; and
- TRn is the number of test requirements for release n-y, where y=1, . . . m-1, and y<n.
- Next, in
step 208, the actual number of defects for the baseline release (Dn-y) is input. In general, this will be a known value and will reflect defects that have so far been observed. Defects could include critical defects, major defects, minor defects, etc. However, it is important that the type of defect counted in this step be of the type that the user wishes to have forecast. Thus, if only critical defects were to be forecasted, then the value for Dn-y should only include observed critical defects for the baseline release. - Next, in
step 210, the number of defects for the upcoming software release (Dn) is calculated. One way to calculate the number of defects is to use the following formula:
D n =D n-y *NFF n (2)
where -
- Dn is the estimated number of defects for release n,
- Dn-y is the number of observed software defects for release n-y, and
- NFFn is the New Functionality Factor (determined in Formula 1) for release n.
- Finally, it may be desirable to measure the quality of the new software release. In
step 212, a quality measurement value (Qn) can optionally be determined after product implementation, using the following formula:
Q n =D n /A n (3)
where -
- Qn is the quality measurement value,
- Dn is the estimated number of defects for release n, and
- An is the actual number of defects for release n.
- The quality measurement value (Qn) may be interpreted as shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1 Interpretation of Quality Measurement Value Qn < 1 Release n is of lower quality than the baseline release Qn = 1 Release n has the same quality as the baseline release Qn > 1 Release n is of higher quality than the baseline release - Although the method described above, with reference to
FIG. 2 , is a relatively straightforward technique to forecast the number of software defects, it is to be appreciated that variations to the above formula(s) may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. - The following will now describe additional ways in which the basic methodology may be expanded to create a more robust tool.
- As discussed above, the New Functionality Factor (NFFn) may be determined by dividing the number of new test requirements for an upcoming software release by the number of test requirements for a “benchmark” software release. However, this assumes that all defects are discovered only in the a new functionality. We can overcome this assumption by taking into account the factor of actual regression defects (R) (percentage of actual regression defects divided by 100) in the release that we are using as the benchmark. The following formula may be used in lieu of Formula 2 to calculate the estimated number of defects in an upcoming software release, taking into consideration regression defects.
D n =D n-y *( NFF n +R n-y) (4)
where -
- Rn-y is the percentage of actual regression defects divided by 100.
- The present invention can also be used in the situation where software code is re-factored. Software code is refactored when it is substantially re-written. We can overcome the problem of code re-factoring by adding the value “1” (or another suitable value) to the New Functionality Factor for that release. This means that we expect regression defects across the functionality as a benchmark. (If the regression defects were expected across 80% of the functionality, then the value “0.80” could be added to the New Functionality Factor). The following formula expresses this concept (where the assumption is that regression defects will be across all functionalities).
D n =D n-y *( NFF n+1) (5) - The invention will be clarified by the following examples.
-
FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary screen display of a project management system incorporating features of the present invention. As depicted inFIG. 3 , a baseline release (“Release 1.0”) had 241 test requirements, and an upcoming software release (“Release 2.0”) had 82 new test requirements. Applying Formula 1, the New Functionality Factor was calculated, as follows:
NFF n=241/82=0.34 - As indicated, Release 1.0 had 32 Critical Defects and 41 Major Defects.
- Applying Formula 2, the estimated number of critical defects for Release 2.0 was calculated as follows:
D n=(32*0.34)=11 - Applying Formula 2, the estimated number of major defects for Release 2.0 was calculated as follows:
D n=(41*0.34)=14 - Suppose, after implementation of Release 2.0, there were actually 10 critical defects and 12 major defects. Using the estimated number of software defects from Example 1 and applying Formula 3, the quality measurements would be calculated as follows:
Q n=11/10=1.10 (critical defect quality)
Q n=14/12=1.67 (major defect quality).
In this case, the project achieved slightly higher critical defect quality and major defect quality than the baseline. - Although illustrative embodiments of the present invention have been described herein with reference to the accompanying drawings, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to those precise embodiments, and that various other changes and modifications may be affected therein by one skilled in the art without departing from the scope or spirit of the invention.
Claims (22)
1. A method for predicting the number of software defects for an upcoming software release, comprising the steps of:
determining the relative size of the upcoming software release with respect to a baseline software release; and
forecasting the number of software defects for the upcoming software release based on the relative size of the upcoming software release and the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release.
2. The method of claim 1 , wherein determining the relative size of the upcoming software release includes the steps of:
determining the number of new test requirements for the upcoming software release;
determining the number of test requirements for the baseline software release; and
dividing the number of new test requirements for the upcoming software release by the number of test requirements for the baseline software release.
3. The method of claim 1 , wherein the forecasting step includes multiplying the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release by the relative size of the upcoming software release.
4. The method of claim 1 , wherein the forecasting step includes multiplying the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release by the sum of the relative size of the upcoming software release and a regression defect factor.
5. The method of claim 1 , wherein the forecasting step includes multiplying the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release by the sum of the relative size of the upcoming software release and a refactoring factor.
6. The method of claim 1 , further including determining a quality measurement for the upcoming software release based on the actual number of software defects for the upcoming software release relative to the forecasted number of software defects for the upcoming software release
7. The method of 6, wherein the quality measurement is used by a project management system.
8. The method of claim 1 , wherein number of software defects for the upcoming software release is used by a project management system.
9. The method of claim 1 , wherein information used to forecast the software defects is graphically depicted.
10. The method of claim 1 , wherein the baseline software release is selected by a user.
11. A system for predicting the number of software defects for an upcoming software release, comprising:
an input device for obtaining information regarding an upcoming software release and a baseline software release;
a processor for determining the relative size of the upcoming software release with respect to a baseline software release and forecasting the number of software defects for the upcoming software release based on the relative size of the upcoming software release and the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release; and
an output device for outputting the forecasted number of software defects for the upcoming software release.
12. The system of claim 11 , wherein the information obtained by the input device includes the number of new test requirements for the upcoming software release and the number of test requirements for the baseline software release, and the processor determines the relative size of the upcoming software release by dividing the number of new test requirements for the upcoming software release by the number of test requirements for the baseline software release.
13. The system of claim 11 , wherein the processor forecasts the number of software defects for the upcoming software release by multiplying the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release by the relative size of the upcoming software release.
14. The system of claim 11 , wherein the processor forecasts the number of software defects for the upcoming software release by multiplying the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release by the sum of the relative size of the upcoming software release and a regression defect factor.
15. The system of claim 11 , wherein the processor forecasts the number of software defects for the upcoming software release by multiplying the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release by the sum of the relative size of the upcoming software release and a refactoring factor.
16. The system of claim 11 , wherein the processor further determines a quality measurement for the upcoming software release based on the actual number of software defects for the upcoming software release relative to the forecasted number of software defects for the upcoming software release
17. The system of 16, wherein the quality measurement is used by a project management system.
18. The system of claim 11 , wherein number of software defects for the upcoming software release is used by a project management system.
19. The system of claim 11 , wherein the output device is configured to graphically depict information regarding the forecasted number of software defects.
20. The system of claim 11 , wherein the input device is configured to allow a user to select the baseline software release.
21. A program storage device readable by a machine, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable on the machine to perform method steps for predicting the number of software defects for an upcoming software release, the method steps comprising:
determining the relative size of the upcoming software release with respect to a baseline software release; and
forecasting the number of software defects for the upcoming software release based on the relative size of the upcoming software release and the number of observed software defects for the baseline software release.
22. The program storage device of claim 21 , wherein the instructions for performing the step of determining the relative size of the upcoming software release includes instructions for performing the steps of:
determining the number of new test requirements for the upcoming software release;
determining the number of test requirements for the baseline software release; and
dividing the number of new test requirements for the upcoming software release by the number of test requirements for the baseline software release.
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US10/718,400 US20050071807A1 (en) | 2003-09-29 | 2003-11-20 | Methods and systems for predicting software defects in an upcoming software release |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US50679403P | 2003-09-29 | 2003-09-29 | |
US10/718,400 US20050071807A1 (en) | 2003-09-29 | 2003-11-20 | Methods and systems for predicting software defects in an upcoming software release |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20050071807A1 true US20050071807A1 (en) | 2005-03-31 |
Family
ID=34381279
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US10/718,400 Abandoned US20050071807A1 (en) | 2003-09-29 | 2003-11-20 | Methods and systems for predicting software defects in an upcoming software release |
Country Status (1)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (1) | US20050071807A1 (en) |
Cited By (61)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20030018573A1 (en) * | 2001-06-28 | 2003-01-23 | Andrew Comas | System and method for characterizing and selecting technology transition options |
US20040083158A1 (en) * | 2002-10-09 | 2004-04-29 | Mark Addison | Systems and methods for distributing pricing data for complex derivative securities |
US20040088278A1 (en) * | 2002-10-30 | 2004-05-06 | Jp Morgan Chase | Method to measure stored procedure execution statistics |
US20040153535A1 (en) * | 2003-02-03 | 2004-08-05 | Chau Tony Ka Wai | Method for software suspension in a networked computer system |
US20050204029A1 (en) * | 2004-03-09 | 2005-09-15 | John Connolly | User connectivity process management system |
US20060041864A1 (en) * | 2004-08-19 | 2006-02-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | Error estimation and tracking tool for testing of code |
US20060085492A1 (en) * | 2004-10-14 | 2006-04-20 | Singh Arun K | System and method for modifying process navigation |
US20070018823A1 (en) * | 2005-05-30 | 2007-01-25 | Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. | Semiconductor device and driving method thereof |
US20080263507A1 (en) * | 2007-04-17 | 2008-10-23 | Ching-Pao Chang | Action-based in-process software defect prediction software defect prediction techniques based on software development activities |
US20080313633A1 (en) * | 2007-06-15 | 2008-12-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Software feature usage analysis and reporting |
US20080313617A1 (en) * | 2007-06-15 | 2008-12-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Analyzing software users with instrumentation data and user group modeling and analysis |
US20080313507A1 (en) * | 2007-06-15 | 2008-12-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Software reliability analysis using alerts, asserts and user interface controls |
US20090319984A1 (en) * | 2008-06-24 | 2009-12-24 | Internaional Business Machines Corporation | Early defect removal model |
US7665127B1 (en) | 2004-06-30 | 2010-02-16 | Jp Morgan Chase Bank | System and method for providing access to protected services |
US20100293072A1 (en) * | 2009-05-13 | 2010-11-18 | David Murrant | Preserving the Integrity of Segments of Audio Streams |
US7870114B2 (en) | 2007-06-15 | 2011-01-11 | Microsoft Corporation | Efficient data infrastructure for high dimensional data analysis |
US7895565B1 (en) | 2006-03-15 | 2011-02-22 | Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Integrated system and method for validating the functionality and performance of software applications |
US20110061041A1 (en) * | 2009-09-04 | 2011-03-10 | International Business Machines Corporation | Reliability and availability modeling of a software application |
US20110066887A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to provide continuous calibration estimation and improvement options across a software integration life cycle |
US20110066490A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for resource modeling and simulation in test planning |
US20110066558A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to produce business case metrics based on code inspection service results |
US20110066890A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for analyzing alternatives in test plans |
US20110066893A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to map defect reduction data to organizational maturity profiles for defect projection modeling |
US20110067006A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to classify automated code inspection services defect output for defect analysis |
US20110066557A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to produce business case metrics based on defect analysis starter (das) results |
US20110066486A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for efficient creation and reconciliation of macro and micro level test plans |
US20110067005A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to determine defect risks in software solutions |
US7913249B1 (en) | 2006-03-07 | 2011-03-22 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Software installation checker |
US20120017195A1 (en) * | 2010-07-17 | 2012-01-19 | Vikrant Shyamkant Kaulgud | Method and System for Evaluating the Testing of a Software System Having a Plurality of Components |
US8126987B2 (en) | 2009-11-16 | 2012-02-28 | Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. | Mediation of content-related services |
US8181016B1 (en) | 2005-12-01 | 2012-05-15 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Applications access re-certification system |
US20130061202A1 (en) * | 2011-09-05 | 2013-03-07 | Infosys Limited | Methods for assessing deliverable product quality and devices thereof |
US8433759B2 (en) | 2010-05-24 | 2013-04-30 | Sony Computer Entertainment America Llc | Direction-conscious information sharing |
US8572516B1 (en) | 2005-08-24 | 2013-10-29 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | System and method for controlling a screen saver |
US8635056B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2014-01-21 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for system integration test (SIT) planning |
US20140033174A1 (en) * | 2012-07-29 | 2014-01-30 | International Business Machines Corporation | Software bug predicting |
US20140033176A1 (en) * | 2012-07-26 | 2014-01-30 | Infosys Limited | Methods for predicting one or more defects in a computer program and devices thereof |
US20140366140A1 (en) * | 2013-06-10 | 2014-12-11 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Estimating a quantity of exploitable security vulnerabilities in a release of an application |
US8966557B2 (en) | 2001-01-22 | 2015-02-24 | Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. | Delivery of digital content |
US9088459B1 (en) | 2013-02-22 | 2015-07-21 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Breadth-first resource allocation system and methods |
CN104899135A (en) * | 2015-05-14 | 2015-09-09 | 工业和信息化部电子第五研究所 | Software defect prediction method and system |
US9213624B2 (en) | 2012-05-31 | 2015-12-15 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Application quality parameter measurement-based development |
US9483405B2 (en) | 2007-09-20 | 2016-11-01 | Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. | Simplified run-time program translation for emulating complex processor pipelines |
US9542259B1 (en) | 2013-12-23 | 2017-01-10 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Automated incident resolution system and method |
CN106528417A (en) * | 2016-10-28 | 2017-03-22 | 中国电子产品可靠性与环境试验研究所 | Intelligent detection method and system of software defects |
US9619410B1 (en) | 2013-10-03 | 2017-04-11 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Systems and methods for packet switching |
US9720655B1 (en) | 2013-02-01 | 2017-08-01 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | User interface event orchestration |
CN107133179A (en) * | 2017-06-06 | 2017-09-05 | 中国电力科学研究院 | A kind of website failure prediction method based on Bayesian network and its realize system |
CN107168868A (en) * | 2017-04-01 | 2017-09-15 | 西安交通大学 | A kind of software based on sampling and integrated study changes failure prediction method |
US9868054B1 (en) | 2014-02-10 | 2018-01-16 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Dynamic game deployment |
US10002041B1 (en) | 2013-02-01 | 2018-06-19 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | System and method for maintaining the health of a machine |
CN109543707A (en) * | 2018-09-29 | 2019-03-29 | 南京航空航天大学 | Semi-supervised change level Software Defects Predict Methods based on three decisions |
CN109634833A (en) * | 2017-10-09 | 2019-04-16 | 北京京东尚科信息技术有限公司 | A kind of Software Defects Predict Methods and device |
US20190163706A1 (en) * | 2015-06-02 | 2019-05-30 | International Business Machines Corporation | Ingesting documents using multiple ingestion pipelines |
US20190377665A1 (en) * | 2015-03-19 | 2019-12-12 | Teachers Insurance And Annuity Association Of America | Evaluating and presenting software testing project status indicators |
WO2020047173A1 (en) * | 2018-08-31 | 2020-03-05 | Procore Technologies, Inc. | Computer system and method for predicting risk level of punch items |
US11036613B1 (en) | 2020-03-30 | 2021-06-15 | Bank Of America Corporation | Regression analysis for software development and management using machine learning |
US11144435B1 (en) | 2020-03-30 | 2021-10-12 | Bank Of America Corporation | Test case generation for software development using machine learning |
US11144308B2 (en) | 2017-09-15 | 2021-10-12 | Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. | System and method for predicting defects in a computer program |
US11151023B2 (en) | 2017-11-20 | 2021-10-19 | Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. | System and method for predicting performance failures in a computer program |
US11288065B2 (en) | 2018-07-02 | 2022-03-29 | International Business Machines Corporation | Devops driven cognitive cost function for software defect prediction |
Citations (23)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5446895A (en) * | 1991-12-13 | 1995-08-29 | White; Leonard R. | Measurement analysis software system and method |
US5655074A (en) * | 1995-07-06 | 1997-08-05 | Bell Communications Research, Inc. | Method and system for conducting statistical quality analysis of a complex system |
US5758061A (en) * | 1995-12-15 | 1998-05-26 | Plum; Thomas S. | Computer software testing method and apparatus |
US5903897A (en) * | 1996-12-18 | 1999-05-11 | Alcatel Usa Sourcing, L.P. | Software documentation release control system |
US5960196A (en) * | 1996-12-18 | 1999-09-28 | Alcatel Usa Sourcing, L.P. | Software release metric reporting system and method |
US6073107A (en) * | 1997-08-26 | 2000-06-06 | Minkiewicz; Arlene F. | Parametric software forecasting system and method |
US6363524B1 (en) * | 1999-09-10 | 2002-03-26 | Hewlett-Packard Company | System and method for assessing the need for installing software patches in a computer system |
US6405364B1 (en) * | 1999-08-31 | 2002-06-11 | Accenture Llp | Building techniques in a development architecture framework |
US20020147961A1 (en) * | 2001-03-05 | 2002-10-10 | Charters Graham Castree | Method, apparatus and computer program product for integrating heterogeneous systems |
US20020162090A1 (en) * | 2001-04-30 | 2002-10-31 | Parnell Karen P. | Polylingual simultaneous shipping of software |
US6477471B1 (en) * | 1995-10-30 | 2002-11-05 | Texas Instruments Incorporated | Product defect predictive engine |
US20030018952A1 (en) * | 2001-07-13 | 2003-01-23 | Roetzheim William H. | System and method to estimate resource usage for a software development project |
US6513154B1 (en) * | 1996-10-21 | 2003-01-28 | John R. Porterfield | System and method for testing of computer programs in programming effort |
US6519763B1 (en) * | 1998-03-30 | 2003-02-11 | Compuware Corporation | Time management and task completion and prediction software |
US20030033586A1 (en) * | 2001-08-09 | 2003-02-13 | James Lawler | Automated system and method for software application quantification |
US6546506B1 (en) * | 1999-09-10 | 2003-04-08 | International Business Machines Corporation | Technique for automatically generating a software test plan |
US6601018B1 (en) * | 1999-02-04 | 2003-07-29 | International Business Machines Corporation | Automatic test framework system and method in software component testing |
US6601233B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2003-07-29 | Accenture Llp | Business components framework |
US6601017B1 (en) * | 2000-11-09 | 2003-07-29 | Ge Financial Assurance Holdings, Inc. | Process and system for quality assurance for software |
US6629266B1 (en) * | 1999-11-17 | 2003-09-30 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for transparent symptom-based selective software rejuvenation |
US6626953B2 (en) * | 1998-04-10 | 2003-09-30 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | System and method for retrieving software release information |
US20030188290A1 (en) * | 2001-08-29 | 2003-10-02 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for a quality software management process |
US20030196190A1 (en) * | 2002-04-12 | 2003-10-16 | International Business Machines Corporation | Generating and managing test plans for testing computer software |
-
2003
- 2003-11-20 US US10/718,400 patent/US20050071807A1/en not_active Abandoned
Patent Citations (23)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5446895A (en) * | 1991-12-13 | 1995-08-29 | White; Leonard R. | Measurement analysis software system and method |
US5655074A (en) * | 1995-07-06 | 1997-08-05 | Bell Communications Research, Inc. | Method and system for conducting statistical quality analysis of a complex system |
US6477471B1 (en) * | 1995-10-30 | 2002-11-05 | Texas Instruments Incorporated | Product defect predictive engine |
US5758061A (en) * | 1995-12-15 | 1998-05-26 | Plum; Thomas S. | Computer software testing method and apparatus |
US6513154B1 (en) * | 1996-10-21 | 2003-01-28 | John R. Porterfield | System and method for testing of computer programs in programming effort |
US5903897A (en) * | 1996-12-18 | 1999-05-11 | Alcatel Usa Sourcing, L.P. | Software documentation release control system |
US5960196A (en) * | 1996-12-18 | 1999-09-28 | Alcatel Usa Sourcing, L.P. | Software release metric reporting system and method |
US6073107A (en) * | 1997-08-26 | 2000-06-06 | Minkiewicz; Arlene F. | Parametric software forecasting system and method |
US6519763B1 (en) * | 1998-03-30 | 2003-02-11 | Compuware Corporation | Time management and task completion and prediction software |
US6626953B2 (en) * | 1998-04-10 | 2003-09-30 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | System and method for retrieving software release information |
US6601018B1 (en) * | 1999-02-04 | 2003-07-29 | International Business Machines Corporation | Automatic test framework system and method in software component testing |
US6601233B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2003-07-29 | Accenture Llp | Business components framework |
US6405364B1 (en) * | 1999-08-31 | 2002-06-11 | Accenture Llp | Building techniques in a development architecture framework |
US6363524B1 (en) * | 1999-09-10 | 2002-03-26 | Hewlett-Packard Company | System and method for assessing the need for installing software patches in a computer system |
US6546506B1 (en) * | 1999-09-10 | 2003-04-08 | International Business Machines Corporation | Technique for automatically generating a software test plan |
US6629266B1 (en) * | 1999-11-17 | 2003-09-30 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for transparent symptom-based selective software rejuvenation |
US6601017B1 (en) * | 2000-11-09 | 2003-07-29 | Ge Financial Assurance Holdings, Inc. | Process and system for quality assurance for software |
US20020147961A1 (en) * | 2001-03-05 | 2002-10-10 | Charters Graham Castree | Method, apparatus and computer program product for integrating heterogeneous systems |
US20020162090A1 (en) * | 2001-04-30 | 2002-10-31 | Parnell Karen P. | Polylingual simultaneous shipping of software |
US20030018952A1 (en) * | 2001-07-13 | 2003-01-23 | Roetzheim William H. | System and method to estimate resource usage for a software development project |
US20030033586A1 (en) * | 2001-08-09 | 2003-02-13 | James Lawler | Automated system and method for software application quantification |
US20030188290A1 (en) * | 2001-08-29 | 2003-10-02 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for a quality software management process |
US20030196190A1 (en) * | 2002-04-12 | 2003-10-16 | International Business Machines Corporation | Generating and managing test plans for testing computer software |
Cited By (106)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US8966557B2 (en) | 2001-01-22 | 2015-02-24 | Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. | Delivery of digital content |
US8234156B2 (en) | 2001-06-28 | 2012-07-31 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | System and method for characterizing and selecting technology transition options |
US20030018573A1 (en) * | 2001-06-28 | 2003-01-23 | Andrew Comas | System and method for characterizing and selecting technology transition options |
US20040083158A1 (en) * | 2002-10-09 | 2004-04-29 | Mark Addison | Systems and methods for distributing pricing data for complex derivative securities |
US20040088278A1 (en) * | 2002-10-30 | 2004-05-06 | Jp Morgan Chase | Method to measure stored procedure execution statistics |
US20040153535A1 (en) * | 2003-02-03 | 2004-08-05 | Chau Tony Ka Wai | Method for software suspension in a networked computer system |
US7702767B2 (en) | 2004-03-09 | 2010-04-20 | Jp Morgan Chase Bank | User connectivity process management system |
US20050204029A1 (en) * | 2004-03-09 | 2005-09-15 | John Connolly | User connectivity process management system |
US7665127B1 (en) | 2004-06-30 | 2010-02-16 | Jp Morgan Chase Bank | System and method for providing access to protected services |
US20060041864A1 (en) * | 2004-08-19 | 2006-02-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | Error estimation and tracking tool for testing of code |
US20060085492A1 (en) * | 2004-10-14 | 2006-04-20 | Singh Arun K | System and method for modifying process navigation |
US20070018823A1 (en) * | 2005-05-30 | 2007-01-25 | Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. | Semiconductor device and driving method thereof |
US8572516B1 (en) | 2005-08-24 | 2013-10-29 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | System and method for controlling a screen saver |
US8972906B1 (en) | 2005-08-24 | 2015-03-03 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | System and method for controlling a screen saver |
US10200444B1 (en) | 2005-08-24 | 2019-02-05 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | System and method for controlling a screen saver |
US8181016B1 (en) | 2005-12-01 | 2012-05-15 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Applications access re-certification system |
US7913249B1 (en) | 2006-03-07 | 2011-03-22 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Software installation checker |
US7895565B1 (en) | 2006-03-15 | 2011-02-22 | Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Integrated system and method for validating the functionality and performance of software applications |
US9477581B2 (en) | 2006-03-15 | 2016-10-25 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Integrated system and method for validating the functionality and performance of software applications |
US20080263507A1 (en) * | 2007-04-17 | 2008-10-23 | Ching-Pao Chang | Action-based in-process software defect prediction software defect prediction techniques based on software development activities |
US7856616B2 (en) * | 2007-04-17 | 2010-12-21 | National Defense University | Action-based in-process software defect prediction software defect prediction techniques based on software development activities |
US7739666B2 (en) | 2007-06-15 | 2010-06-15 | Microsoft Corporation | Analyzing software users with instrumentation data and user group modeling and analysis |
US7870114B2 (en) | 2007-06-15 | 2011-01-11 | Microsoft Corporation | Efficient data infrastructure for high dimensional data analysis |
US7747988B2 (en) | 2007-06-15 | 2010-06-29 | Microsoft Corporation | Software feature usage analysis and reporting |
US7681085B2 (en) | 2007-06-15 | 2010-03-16 | Microsoft Corporation | Software reliability analysis using alerts, asserts and user interface controls |
US20080313507A1 (en) * | 2007-06-15 | 2008-12-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Software reliability analysis using alerts, asserts and user interface controls |
US20080313617A1 (en) * | 2007-06-15 | 2008-12-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Analyzing software users with instrumentation data and user group modeling and analysis |
US20080313633A1 (en) * | 2007-06-15 | 2008-12-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Software feature usage analysis and reporting |
US9483405B2 (en) | 2007-09-20 | 2016-11-01 | Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. | Simplified run-time program translation for emulating complex processor pipelines |
US20090319984A1 (en) * | 2008-06-24 | 2009-12-24 | Internaional Business Machines Corporation | Early defect removal model |
US8352904B2 (en) * | 2008-06-24 | 2013-01-08 | International Business Machines Corporation | Early defect removal model |
US20100293072A1 (en) * | 2009-05-13 | 2010-11-18 | David Murrant | Preserving the Integrity of Segments of Audio Streams |
US20110061041A1 (en) * | 2009-09-04 | 2011-03-10 | International Business Machines Corporation | Reliability and availability modeling of a software application |
US8689188B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2014-04-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for analyzing alternatives in test plans |
US10235269B2 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2019-03-19 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to produce business case metrics based on defect analysis starter (DAS) results |
US10372593B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2019-08-06 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for resource modeling and simulation in test planning |
US20110067005A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to determine defect risks in software solutions |
US20110066486A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for efficient creation and reconciliation of macro and micro level test plans |
US20110066887A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to provide continuous calibration estimation and improvement options across a software integration life cycle |
US10185649B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2019-01-22 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for efficient creation and reconciliation of macro and micro level test plans |
US8495583B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2013-07-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to determine defect risks in software solutions |
US8527955B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2013-09-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to classify automated code inspection services defect output for defect analysis |
US8539438B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2013-09-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for efficient creation and reconciliation of macro and micro level test plans |
US8566805B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2013-10-22 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to provide continuous calibration estimation and improvement options across a software integration life cycle |
US20110066557A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to produce business case metrics based on defect analysis starter (das) results |
US8578341B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2013-11-05 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to map defect reduction data to organizational maturity profiles for defect projection modeling |
US9753838B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2017-09-05 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to classify automated code inspection services defect output for defect analysis |
US8635056B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2014-01-21 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for system integration test (SIT) planning |
US9710257B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2017-07-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to map defect reduction data to organizational maturity profiles for defect projection modeling |
US9594671B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2017-03-14 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for resource modeling and simulation in test planning |
US8645921B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2014-02-04 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to determine defect risks in software solutions |
US8667458B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2014-03-04 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to produce business case metrics based on code inspection service results |
US20110067006A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to classify automated code inspection services defect output for defect analysis |
US8893086B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2014-11-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for resource modeling and simulation in test planning |
US9558464B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2017-01-31 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to determine defect risks in software solutions |
US8924936B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2014-12-30 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to classify automated code inspection services defect output for defect analysis |
US20110066893A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to map defect reduction data to organizational maturity profiles for defect projection modeling |
US20110066890A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for analyzing alternatives in test plans |
US20110066490A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for resource modeling and simulation in test planning |
US9052981B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2015-06-09 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to map defect reduction data to organizational maturity profiles for defect projection modeling |
US20110066558A1 (en) * | 2009-09-11 | 2011-03-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to produce business case metrics based on code inspection service results |
US9442821B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2016-09-13 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to classify automated code inspection services defect output for defect analysis |
US9292421B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2016-03-22 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for resource modeling and simulation in test planning |
US9176844B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2015-11-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method to classify automated code inspection services defect output for defect analysis |
US9262736B2 (en) | 2009-09-11 | 2016-02-16 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for efficient creation and reconciliation of macro and micro level test plans |
US8126987B2 (en) | 2009-11-16 | 2012-02-28 | Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. | Mediation of content-related services |
US8433759B2 (en) | 2010-05-24 | 2013-04-30 | Sony Computer Entertainment America Llc | Direction-conscious information sharing |
US8601441B2 (en) * | 2010-07-17 | 2013-12-03 | Accenture Global Services Limited | Method and system for evaluating the testing of a software system having a plurality of components |
US20120017195A1 (en) * | 2010-07-17 | 2012-01-19 | Vikrant Shyamkant Kaulgud | Method and System for Evaluating the Testing of a Software System Having a Plurality of Components |
US9134997B2 (en) * | 2011-09-05 | 2015-09-15 | Infosys Limited | Methods for assessing deliverable product quality and devices thereof |
US20130061202A1 (en) * | 2011-09-05 | 2013-03-07 | Infosys Limited | Methods for assessing deliverable product quality and devices thereof |
US9213624B2 (en) | 2012-05-31 | 2015-12-15 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Application quality parameter measurement-based development |
US20140033176A1 (en) * | 2012-07-26 | 2014-01-30 | Infosys Limited | Methods for predicting one or more defects in a computer program and devices thereof |
US9038030B2 (en) * | 2012-07-26 | 2015-05-19 | Infosys Limited | Methods for predicting one or more defects in a computer program and devices thereof |
US20140033174A1 (en) * | 2012-07-29 | 2014-01-30 | International Business Machines Corporation | Software bug predicting |
US9898262B2 (en) | 2013-02-01 | 2018-02-20 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | User interface event orchestration |
US9720655B1 (en) | 2013-02-01 | 2017-08-01 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | User interface event orchestration |
US10664335B2 (en) | 2013-02-01 | 2020-05-26 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | System and method for maintaining the health of a machine |
US10002041B1 (en) | 2013-02-01 | 2018-06-19 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | System and method for maintaining the health of a machine |
US9537790B1 (en) | 2013-02-22 | 2017-01-03 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Breadth-first resource allocation system and methods |
US9088459B1 (en) | 2013-02-22 | 2015-07-21 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Breadth-first resource allocation system and methods |
US9882973B2 (en) | 2013-02-22 | 2018-01-30 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Breadth-first resource allocation system and methods |
US20140366140A1 (en) * | 2013-06-10 | 2014-12-11 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Estimating a quantity of exploitable security vulnerabilities in a release of an application |
US9619410B1 (en) | 2013-10-03 | 2017-04-11 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Systems and methods for packet switching |
US9900267B2 (en) | 2013-10-03 | 2018-02-20 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Systems and methods for packet switching |
US9542259B1 (en) | 2013-12-23 | 2017-01-10 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Automated incident resolution system and method |
US10678628B2 (en) | 2013-12-23 | 2020-06-09 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Automated incident resolution system and method |
US9868054B1 (en) | 2014-02-10 | 2018-01-16 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Dynamic game deployment |
US10901875B2 (en) * | 2015-03-19 | 2021-01-26 | Teachers Insurance And Annuity Association Of America | Evaluating and presenting software testing project status indicators |
US20190377665A1 (en) * | 2015-03-19 | 2019-12-12 | Teachers Insurance And Annuity Association Of America | Evaluating and presenting software testing project status indicators |
CN104899135A (en) * | 2015-05-14 | 2015-09-09 | 工业和信息化部电子第五研究所 | Software defect prediction method and system |
US20190163706A1 (en) * | 2015-06-02 | 2019-05-30 | International Business Machines Corporation | Ingesting documents using multiple ingestion pipelines |
US10318591B2 (en) | 2015-06-02 | 2019-06-11 | International Business Machines Corporation | Ingesting documents using multiple ingestion pipelines |
US10572547B2 (en) * | 2015-06-02 | 2020-02-25 | International Business Machines Corporation | Ingesting documents using multiple ingestion pipelines |
CN106528417A (en) * | 2016-10-28 | 2017-03-22 | 中国电子产品可靠性与环境试验研究所 | Intelligent detection method and system of software defects |
CN107168868A (en) * | 2017-04-01 | 2017-09-15 | 西安交通大学 | A kind of software based on sampling and integrated study changes failure prediction method |
CN107133179A (en) * | 2017-06-06 | 2017-09-05 | 中国电力科学研究院 | A kind of website failure prediction method based on Bayesian network and its realize system |
US11144308B2 (en) | 2017-09-15 | 2021-10-12 | Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. | System and method for predicting defects in a computer program |
CN109634833A (en) * | 2017-10-09 | 2019-04-16 | 北京京东尚科信息技术有限公司 | A kind of Software Defects Predict Methods and device |
US11151023B2 (en) | 2017-11-20 | 2021-10-19 | Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. | System and method for predicting performance failures in a computer program |
US11288065B2 (en) | 2018-07-02 | 2022-03-29 | International Business Machines Corporation | Devops driven cognitive cost function for software defect prediction |
WO2020047173A1 (en) * | 2018-08-31 | 2020-03-05 | Procore Technologies, Inc. | Computer system and method for predicting risk level of punch items |
CN109543707A (en) * | 2018-09-29 | 2019-03-29 | 南京航空航天大学 | Semi-supervised change level Software Defects Predict Methods based on three decisions |
US11036613B1 (en) | 2020-03-30 | 2021-06-15 | Bank Of America Corporation | Regression analysis for software development and management using machine learning |
US11144435B1 (en) | 2020-03-30 | 2021-10-12 | Bank Of America Corporation | Test case generation for software development using machine learning |
US11556460B2 (en) | 2020-03-30 | 2023-01-17 | Bank Of America Corporation | Test case generation for software development using machine learning |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US20050071807A1 (en) | Methods and systems for predicting software defects in an upcoming software release | |
Ibbs et al. | Quantified impacts of project change | |
US7788127B1 (en) | Forecast model quality index for computer storage capacity planning | |
US8498887B2 (en) | Estimating project size | |
EP1624397A1 (en) | Automatic validation and calibration of transaction-based performance models | |
CA2707916C (en) | Intelligent timesheet assistance | |
US20030033586A1 (en) | Automated system and method for software application quantification | |
US8818922B2 (en) | Method and apparatus for predicting application performance across machines with different hardware configurations | |
Staron et al. | A method for forecasting defect backlog in large streamline software development projects and its industrial evaluation | |
Adrian et al. | Modeling method-productivity | |
US20120310697A1 (en) | Variance management | |
EP3942416B1 (en) | Estimating treatment effect of user interface changes using a state-space model | |
EP4086824A1 (en) | Method for automatically updating unit cost of inspection by using comparison between inspection time and work time of crowdsourcing-based project for generating artificial intelligence training data | |
US20040024673A1 (en) | Method for optimizing the allocation of resources based on market and technology considerations | |
US20150254584A1 (en) | Estimates using historical analysis | |
CN112905435B (en) | Workload assessment method, device, equipment and storage medium based on big data | |
Stikkel | Dynamic model for the system testing process | |
Gana et al. | Statistical modeling applied to managing global 5ESS®‐2000 switch software development | |
Blocher et al. | Updating analytical procedures | |
Liao et al. | Implementation of traffic data quality verification for WIM sites | |
US9218582B2 (en) | Quantifying the quality of trend lines | |
Kapur et al. | A general software reliability growth model for a distributed environment | |
KR100901357B1 (en) | Measuring method of Software maintenance development size and the System thereof | |
CN115222149A (en) | Resource conversion parameter management method, device, equipment and storage medium | |
Happe et al. | Black-box performance models: prediction based on observation |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NEW YORK Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:YANAVI, AURA;REEL/FRAME:015510/0376 Effective date: 20040316 |
|
STCB | Information on status: application discontinuation |
Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN OFFICE ACTION |